Gravity Works Like This

You don't often see the word "exactly" used by.., well.., I don't remember ever seeing that word used by a respected theorist.

It is not the local experience and experimental data that is at issue, it is the run away conclusions that follow...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Who's talking THEORY, I just pointed out the EMPIRICALLY CONFIRMED LOCAL GR EFFECTS REALITY which was predicted by the theory. At that stage it is the REALITY that should TAKE OVER from the theory and move forward to better reality ToE complete and consistent in the WHOLE reality. Just as once you have learned the ABCs you then move on to actually composing comprehensible words. Yes?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your post quoted above contains no useful information.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yu don't know the difference between theory and empirically evident local reality? That explains a lot as to what reasonable people are up against. Some priests are just like that, they still prefer fantasy to empirical reality under their nose. Good luck with that, OnlyMe.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

He just isn't sincere, Maxila. You can see motion, you can't see time, so it doesn't make much sense to claim that you need time to have motion. And when you look inside a clock and see things moving instead of time flowing, you hopefully appreciate that actually, you need motion to have time.

 

It's called the coordinate speed of light. Look it up.

 

Farsight

You should look it up. Coordinate speed is not the same thing as the speed of light through spacetime c .

Coordinate speed is the distance between two points divided by the time it takes to transit between those points. It is a DERIVED value and varies in accelerated frames.

The speed of light is the actual speed at which all radiation always travels in empty spacetime. c It does not vary or change, ever.

Such a simple mistake in your understanding upon which you base the garbage that you have been posting.

The quote-mining is just dishonesty, a character flaw. Remember, character is something you should have, not something you should be.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

RC and Farsight

There is no difference between invariant lightspeed and constant lightspeed. Light is invariant and constant and it's actual speed through spacetime c never changes(that's what constant and invariant means).

The coordinate speed of light varies as the curvature of spacetime increases. The coordinate speed is a DERIVED value, not the reality. As light always follows the zero energy geodesic, the more spacetime is bent the longer it takes to travel that increased distance, the slower the coordinate speed is, but the photons all continue to travel exactly the same speed through that increased distance. Your total inability to understand the difference between coordinate speed and c is the cause of your getting everything about Relativity wrong.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

As you all know I never put somebody on ignore for ever. After a week or so I'll have a look at what some guy is saying and maybe take him off ignore.

Spacetime is a mathematical model that combines space and time. It's sometimes described in terms of a "block universe", where we drop one of the spatial dimensions and depict the time dimension vertically. Then we draw worldlines in it. However because it has that vertical time dimension, there's no motion through it or in it. It's static. Light moves through space, but it doesn't move through spacetime. So that's a fail for Grumpy. Hence:

 

Sometimes, by idiots who do not follow the literature and thus do not understand the difference.

Sometimes, by idiots that have never worked through a physics problem.

Worldlines are merely the description of a certain path. We could merely call them paths.

Time could be horizontal. Or not drawn on a graph at all.

This really is idiocy, since in order to describe something in physics, you need to have a time coordinate. No time coordinate, no physics. No space coordinate, no physics. Time and space coordinates? Spacetime.

 

One cannot directly prove a theoretical science like GR.

 

Farsight

In other words you run and hide from someone who calls BS on your posts and peek out after a while to see if they have gone away. Got it.

Fact: Lightspeed is constant and invariant in all frames.

Fact: time and space are one thing, spacetime.

Fact: the coordinate speed of light is not it's speed through spacetime, which is constant and invariant in and between all frames. It is a DERIVED, ABSTRACT FICTION.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

How do you see motion? Can you describe what it is that you see when you see motion?

 

It's like Farsight approaches citation: pay attention to one sentence that supports his claim and ignore the rest.

 

I didn't leave out time, empirically time is coincident with motion using either term means the same thing. Again empirically for any observation or experiment you can devise a change in time is a change in position (motion), for those observations we see only energy and space (separation), time or motion is not an observable entity but rather the description or explanation of the energy changing position relative to a distance (separation). That is analogous to saying for mass we see only a quantity of energy and we describe the quantity we see as mass, in other words, mass is not the entity energy is and mass describes a characteristic of energy (its quantity), just as time describes a characteristic of energy (its change of position relative to separation). The only difference is time and motion describe the same thing, empirically it is an axiom that they are one inseparable dynamic.

 

Time happens at the same time as motion? :bugeye:

Except when it doesn't. The charge on one plate with respect to another is proportional to e[sup]at[/sup] which breaks that logic.

Yeah except time really doesn't need to be redefined.

Except when we don't which is why we call it mass rather than energy.

Unless we see it moving and then we call it a mass with kinetic energy.

Uh, no, the energy of an electric field needs no mass to redefine it.

Except when it doesn't.

No actually the only difference is that this isn't right at all.

 

This can't be the case, since we can speak of some objects moving and others not moving.

 

Maxila

Movement-change in spacial coordinates over time. Requires 4D spacetime to describe.

Velocity-rate of change of position over a set time. Requires 4D spacetime to describe

Position of an event-coordinate values in spacial dimensions at a stated time. Requires 4D spacetime to describe

Spacetime is both a way of thinking and an accurate description of reality. Reality acts as though spacetime is a real thing, to an excruciating level of accuracy. The spacetime model was adapted because that is how reality is seen to behave. Maybe not the last word, but the latest and most accurate word we have for the last 100 years or so. Any alternative will have to do better than that, I just don't see that happening yet, not even close.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

When you speak of an object not moving for a duration, how has the observer experienced or referenced that duration without any motion (macro, molecular, atomic)? The common mistake is to forget the experience of time or the reference to a change of time (like a clock) requires motion.

Empirically change requires motion, hence a change in time requires motion. It is common and intuitive to think of time as changing, being separate and void of motion but nothing can be observed to change physically without a change in position (motion/time are the same). That is why time is said to have come into existence at the big bang, in a singularity there is no space (separation) in which to calculate a change in position (motion), therefore no way to calculate time which is the same and coincident. Time can only be observed empirically when there is some increment of space to account for a change in position.

When you get your head around that, the coupling of space and time is as obvious as any axiom can be, space (separation) requires the ability to change position to have any meaning, and the ability to change position requires space.

 

Perceptions are real, since they are mental images formed from sensory input (light) from the universe. As the anaut example demonstrates, all perception does not correspond to actual physical phenomena outside the mind. The 'motion picture' is an excellent example where the mind 'sees' motion where there is none. The person hallucinating has images which are real to him, but no one else sees them.

The propagation speed of light c, is constant. Why the measured speed is c can be derived from the theory.

Minkowski revised Einstein's SR into a mathematical 4D theory. People such as Briane Green present it metaphorically as moving in time.